Andy Onchan 4,118 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 hour ago, Banker said: Don’t panic, the 3 day vaccinations program is restarted, Oxford one waiting for paperwork!! https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/vaccination-programme-continues-today/ 3 days a week is not enough. If one person with the 'old' coronavirus passes it onto three people, and those three people pass onto three more people for ten cycles, there will be 59,000 infections. That's almost 70% of the Island's population. The 'new' variant will rip through our community at an alarming rate. What is it that COMIN and their advisers don't understand? As I have said in the other blog, I have now lost all confidence in the Public Health advice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Wright 8,007 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 8 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: 3 days a week is not enough. If one person with the 'old' coronavirus passes it onto three people, and those three people pass onto three more people for ten cycles, there will be 59,000 infections. That's almost 70% of the Island's population. The 'new' variant will rip through our community at an alarming rate. What is it that COMIN and their advisers don't understand? As I have said in the other blog, I have now lost all confidence in the Public Health advice. That’s just scaremongering. It shows either panic or total lack of understanding of R. Has anywhere had an R rate of 3? No! Plus you ignore the effect of lockdown. That has a huge dampening effect. This is all about risk management. No precaution can be 100% effective. So 14 day gold standard isolation had a 0.5% risk. We’ve now extended to 21 days or 14 and tests on days 1, 6/7 and 13. Youre brighter than this Andy. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Duck of Atholl 958 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 On 12/16/2020 at 3:21 PM, The Duck of Atholl said: I'm starting to doubt whether any jabs will be administered for this pre Christmas. It will be the Douglas Prom for Healthcare Just thought I'd repost this...as vaccinations (or lack of them) are becoming "promesque". 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andy Onchan 4,118 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 minute ago, John Wright said: That’s just scaremongering. It shows either panic or total lack of understanding of R. Has anywhere had an R rate of 3? No! Plus you ignore the effect of lockdown. That has a huge dampening effect. This is all about risk management. No precaution can be 100% effective. So 14 day gold standard isolation had a 0.5% risk. We’ve now extended to 21 days or 14 and tests on days 1, 6/7 and 13. Youre brighter than this Andy. It's not scaremongering. It's highlighting the potential of what it is capable of if it's not dealt with properly. The risk management is only as good as the 'treatment'. The treatment (testing) was removed because someone in their almighty wisdom couldn't see that a positive test on arrival and subsequent tests was a good move. It was more about this stupid idea that somehow using percentages would wish it away. A positive test is as good as a negative. Simply because you know it's there and can do something about it and stop it in it's tracks. Just wait and see what happens JW. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Happier diner 411 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 2 hours ago, Happier diner said: Paperwork duly strapped to pigeons leg and ready to fly once the indemnity for the pigeon is sorted and also his landing papers. A few days should see us near to starting This wind is getting up. Its gonna blow the pigeon off course. Paperwork will be lost and a new set will have to be handwritten. Then there's the search for another pigeon. Of course everything has to be in order. I hope and prey that one of our journos asks so proper questions today 1) What deliveries of vaccine have we had (by type and number) and when they arrived 2) Day to day figure for number administered (Type/Group) 3) Rolling number with 1 shot 4) Rolling number with both shots Time to stop all this weasel worded deflection and treat us like we are actually stakeholders in this process. 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dreamon 73 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said: It's not scaremongering. It's highlighting the potential of what it is capable of if it's not dealt with properly. The risk management is only as good as the 'treatment'. The treatment (testing) was removed because someone in their almighty wisdom couldn't see that a positive test on arrival and subsequent tests was a good move. It was more about this stupid idea that somehow using percentages would wish it away. A positive test is as good as a negative. Simply because you know it's there and can do something about it and stop it in it's tracks. Just wait and see what happens JW. Totally agree with you, Andy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andy Onchan 4,118 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 3 minutes ago, dreamon said: Totally agree with you, Andy. Using percentages with a small data set is next to useless. And I'm really surprised that this bullshit is still being rolled out by the MBE and his Public Health cohorts. We're talking people here in a community of no more than 85K. They are people that we know, not someone across the other side of the planet. I do wish they'd stop this percentages crap and start talking about real numbers. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Non-Believer 12,524 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 13 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: Using percentages with a small data set is next to useless. And I'm really surprised that this bullshit is still being rolled out by the MBE and his Public Health cohorts. We're talking people here in a community of no more than 85K. They are people that we know, not someone across the other side of the planet. I do wish they'd stop this percentages crap and start talking about real numbers. Politicians (and their cs) don't like real numbers. Real numbers come with accountability and can require explanation to the unwashed. Best to hide behind "percentages", pretending that they're looking at the bigger picture. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Apple 686 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Sorry to maybe be a bit behind the curve on this but what 'indemnity' are / were we actually waiting for. Is it to absolve the UK NHS from any negative or destructive effects of the vaccines or is it from the manufacturers for the same reason ? Or have I missed something? (probably - not been well) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Banker 1,077 Posted January 11 Author Share Posted January 11 15 minutes ago, Apple said: Sorry to maybe be a bit behind the curve on this but what 'indemnity' are / were we actually waiting for. Is it to absolve the UK NHS from any negative or destructive effects of the vaccines or is it from the manufacturers for the same reason ? Or have I missed something? (probably - not been well) I understand it’s an indemnity from uk to crown dependencies which Ashie insist is checked by AGs office, other crown dependencies take indemnity as being acceptable and crack on whether they have paperwork or not which is probably why they started mid December 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Apple 686 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Thanks @Banker. Does that mean the UK government takes responsibility if we all start dropping like flies then. Or is it just down to each individual to sign for it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andy Onchan 4,118 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 19 minutes ago, Banker said: I understand it’s an indemnity from uk to crown dependencies which Ashie insist is checked by AGs office, other crown dependencies take indemnity as being acceptable and crack on whether they have paperwork or not which is probably why they started mid December They're probably non-negotiable anyway. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Wright 8,007 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 12 minutes ago, Apple said: Thanks @Banker. Does that mean the UK government takes responsibility if we all start dropping like flies then. Or is it just down to each individual to sign for it. No. The UK ( and devolved administrations ) have all passed exculpatory legislation, as has IoM and each CI. However the only supply line for the CD’s, Gib, BoT’s, or DT’s is via UK, which has approved the vaccines for emergency use ( we don’t have our own approval mechanism ), bought it from Pfizer, AZ or Modena, handled it, stored it and transported it. Id not trust Boris & Co, if I were advising, I’d want to see a proper meaningful signed indemnity. Wouldn’t you? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Banker 1,077 Posted January 11 Author Share Posted January 11 Uk upto 2.4m vaccinations today so fair play try do seem to be ramping up roll out with 1/3 over 8os done by yesterday and hoping to have all over 70s + health workers done by end February Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Neil Down 7,946 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 4 hours ago, John Wright said: That’s just scaremongering. It shows either panic or total lack of understanding of R. Has anywhere had an R rate of 3? No! Plus you ignore the effect of lockdown. That has a huge dampening effect. This is all about risk management. No precaution can be 100% effective. So 14 day gold standard isolation had a 0.5% risk. We’ve now extended to 21 days or 14 and tests on days 1, 6/7 and 13. Youre brighter than this Andy. Looking at some of the bellends posting on FB, there is a number of people exploiting the lockdown guidance... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.